Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a theoretical and experimental study of the exchange of fluids of different densities through an opening. Three types of openings are examined: a bottom opening (the opening is at the bottom of a gate), a middle opening (in the middle) and a window opening (the opening is in the middle but does not extend across the width). Simultaneous measurements of velocity field and interface position were obtained using flow visualization and image processing techniques. Experimental results confirm the predictions of the internal hydraulic theory that there are two internal hydraulic controls in the flow through bottom openings, but one control in the middle and window opening experiments. The neglect of non-hydrostatic forces and interfacial mixing in the theory, however, results in a significant underestimate of the exchange rate by more than 50 % in the middle and window opening experiments. The fluctuations in the interface position were caused by Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities as well as basin-scale internal seiche, and the transition of internally supercritical flow to subcritical flow was caused by the mixing generated by these instabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".